Please note that as of the posting of this letter
on February 15, 2000, and the reformatting of this letter on August 29,
2000, we had not received a reply to the questions and objections we raised.
This suggests that the motive for this letter was to cloak abusiveness
within a shroud of open-mindedness.

Should we eventually receive a reply, we will
post it below and indicate here that we have done so.

After hearing various humourous comments about your website and
things you've said, I decided to take a quick side-trip to positiveatheism.org
and peruse the writings that are online. Hmmm. A couple things struck me
almost immediately, one of which was driven in when I read the following,
from the "Atheism...just another title?"
thread, your response dated 7.11.1999, sixth paragraph:

Positive Atheism is based upon
the premise that organized atheism exists only to counter the claims of
theists. We are, in this sense, calling theism falsehood. This would indicate
that we have a respect for truthfulness.

The first thought I had (unrelated, directly, to the above paragraph)
was that you tend to focus on the judeo-christian-islamic trio and, that
said, mostly on the 'christian' part. While I've taken part in many a religious
debate, and baited plenty a fundie in years past, it's ludicrous to declare
yourself against "religion" if the only religion you focus on
is christianity. There are more fish in the sea. That said, I did in fact
read some items that dealt with other religions, but they seem to be in
the minority.

The second thought I had, which the above quote directly confirms,
was that you and your website are less about atheism and its "positive"
aspects (as your name implies), and is more about the negative aspects
of other religions. Indeed, you come off as a politician in a negative
compaign, trying to win only by making your opponent lose. In fact, it
sounds a bit like a religion I know...

In your journey to truthfulness, don't forget that truths can
be found in religions, and that there is more to religion than christianity.
And if you believe that taoism, buddhism, the church of satan, voudun,
wicca, shamanism, the temple of set, confuscianism, hindu, and all the
others are just like christianity, you're doing yourself a disservice.

I have no problem with atheism. I have no problem with any other
religion. I have problems with a number of practitioners, but that's
often not the religion's fault. A question: if you call yourself "Positive
Atheism", why do you seem to focus more on "Religious Negativity"?

And here's something for your quest for truth: If you don't believe
in an afterlife, the only truth that's important is that we are born, we
live, and we die. Ultimately, no other truths matter. The truths you learn
will eventually be lost, and will change nothing. The religious practitioners
who are "deceived" by their faiths will die just the same, their
self-deception having done no real harm. So where is the good in trying
to crush the belief systems of others, which in many cases is one of the
few things that helps them deal with life...?

I read the following, from the "Atheism...just another title?"
thread, your response dated 7.11.1999, sixth paragraph:

Positive Atheism is based upon
the premise that organized atheism exists only to counter the claims of
theists. We are, in this sense, calling theism falsehood. This would indicate
that we have a respect for truthfulness.

The first thought...

But then you proceed to weave arguments that have absolutely nothing
to do with the simple statement being made here.

Please explain to us why you brought this up in the first place.

The first thought I had (unrelated, directly, to the above paragraph)
was that you tend to focus on the judeo-christian-islamic trio and, that
said, mostly on the 'christian' part. While I've taken part in many a religious
debate, and baited plenty a fundie in years past, it's ludicrous to declare
yourself against "religion" if the only religion you focus on
is christianity. There are more fish in the sea. That said, I did in fact
read some items that dealt with other religions, but they seem to be in
the minority.

We tend to ignore the unintrusive religions, and counter only the ones
that directly impact us against our will.

Also, we strongly discourage the use of the pejorative "fundie"
on this forum. It's a dignity thing. We have, on several occasions, rejected
a perfectly good letter simply because it contained such perjoratives.

The second thought I had, which the above quote directly confirms,
was that you and your website are less about atheism and its "positive"
aspects (as your name implies), and is more about the negative aspects
of other religions.

You have a completely different understanding of the term "positive"
than the way we use it here.

In fact, it sounds a bit like a religion I know...

This is a pretty low blow, and justifies our asking you to specify which
religion and also to specify how so.

In your journey to truthfulness, don't forget that truths can
be found in religions, and that there is more to religion than christianity.
And if you believe that taoism, buddhism, the church of satan, voudun,
wicca, shamanism, the temple of set, confuscianism, hindu, and all the
others are just like christianity, you're doing yourself a disservice.

Truths can be found in Grimm's Fairy Tales, too, but this does
not justify teaching our children that the characters in Grimm's
actually existed.

I have no problem with atheism. I have no problem with any other
religion. I have problems with a number of practitioners, but that's
often not the religion's fault. A question: if you call yourself "Positive
Atheism", why do you seem to focus more on "Religious Negativity"?

This is the essence of fundamentalist thinking: that the philosophy
itself is without fault, and that all problems are caused by certain individuals
who just aren't practicing the (faultless) religion properly.

"Positive Atheism" opposes such thinking, especially within
atheism, and will issue a harsh statement
against such tendencies within organized atheism in December, after the
specific wording undergoes the scrutiny of a small group of atheistic leaders
whose organizations could be impacted by our statement.

If you don't believe in an afterlife, the only truth that's important
is that we are born, we live, and we die. Ultimately, no other truths matter.

I go further than this: Ultimately, even these three truths do not matter.

Meanwhile, I am alive at this moment and choose to make something of
what little I have -- which is my prerogative. Here is where our actual
philosophy differs from your false caricature of our philosophy.

The religious practitioners who are "deceived" by their
faiths will die just the same, their self-deception having done no real
harm. So where is the good in trying to crush the belief systems of others,
which in many cases is one of the few things that helps them deal with
life...?

"Ultimately" is not the here and now. We humans, while alive,
are very concerned with the here and now, even though "ultimately"
nothing will matter. At one point, someone graciously (and patiently) showed
this to me, thus helping me to stop being part of the problem.

Your question ignores one glaring fact: Historically, it has been the
religious organizations that have not only crushed the thinking of those
who see no gods, but also have crushed our thumbs, our legs, and our skulls;
pulled our limbs out of joint, poured molten lead in our bodily orifices;
cut off our ears and ripped out our tongues; tied us to a stake and set
us aflame; confiscated our estates; sent our wives and children into slavery.

In addition to this, the religious organizations have retarded science
and set us back by thousands of years because they enforced superstition
upon us and killed those who would question the dominant myth (including
members of minority religions, mind you). We would hope that some such
minorities would join us in demanding that religion never again be used
to determine public policy, and that all religion remain on a separate
realm (in the interest of human progress as well as in the interest of
freedom of individual religious choice, and of freedom from the dominant
religious paradigm).

Finally, I do not think that it is wrong to hurt someone's sensibilities,
or to offend them by criticizing their publicly proclaimed religious dogmas.
I openly advocate that no idea is above criticism (including my
ideas -- and especially those of the dominant paradigm). If anyone's
religious beliefs are crushed by this open and public exchange of ideas,
so be it. To protect someone's views from criticism simply because they
hold those views to be "sacred" (or whatever) is the most vicious
form of religious tyranny that is left -- now that they are not currently
allowed to burn us at the stake.